Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

[QuestioningMind]

1 + 1= 10 (binary). But I had faith you meant base 10 (or perhaps octal or hexadecimal).

Ah, silly me. 1 + 1 = 2 is a truth IN BASE TEN. No faith required.

 

[DavidFirth]

But that's not based on FACT, it's based on your ASSUMPTIONS due to the circumstances. Your FAITH that the man holding the smoking gun could easily be proven FALSE, if the evidence provided by a video camera shows the man coming into the room after the body was already shot and picking up the gun. Once that FACT is established, there is now no longer any reason to accept your assumption based on faith.

Well, in my example there is no video.

 

[sun rise]

A typical problem has recurred. "faith" is a synonym for confidence, belief, certitude etc. Some of the posts here were more about this kind of faith. Faith, a religious belief, is something else that relies on conviction/confidence etc along with theology.

 

[sun rise]

Ah, silly me. 1 + 1 = 2 is a truth IN BASE TEN. No faith required.

But I had faith that was what you meant.

 

[DavidFirth]

It makes me feel like asking you, why don't you read what they have to say WITH AN OPEN MIND?

.

I have, man. I haven't always been a real Christian. It still sounded like guys trying to do anything except accept a Creator to me.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Try telling that to scientists and see how far you get.

When scientists claimed that there would be a solar eclipse back on the 21st of Aug. it was an assumption. The moment it actually occurred, it became a fact... no faith or assumptions required.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, in my example there is no video.

Then your conclusion is based solely on assumptions, not verifiable facts.

 

[Skwim]

I have, man. I haven't always been a real Christian. It still sounded like guys trying to do anything except accept a Creator to me.

Being both a Christian and an evolutionist isn't necessarily mutually exclusive. List of Christian evolutionists HERE

.

 

[bobhikes]

Two ingredients. 1 ingredient + 1 other ingredient = 2 ingredients


Yeah, one wave length of blue light plus one wave length of yellow light equals two waves lengths of different colors that combined to make green. The fact that you now have green doesn't change the fact that the there are two waves lengths of other colors required to make green. 1 + 1 = 2

No but it does change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 = 1 and the intensity of the light increases but not exactly double.

1 + 1 = 2 also has problems in the quantum world but that would take a lot of explaining.

The fact also that you only listed 1 + 1 = 2 with no reality identifier and say it exists in reality indicates you have faith. 1 what + 1 what = 2 what. You have faith that you can prove it with anything because in reality there are many exceptions.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But I had faith that was what you meant.

Yes, but in the above example NO FAITH IS REQUIRED. Thus claiming that faith is REQUIRED to arrive at truth is silly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's seems to be a major problem in today's society. People seem to think there can be MY facts and YOUR facts and that somehow both are equally valid. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. Even if someone claims that from their 'experience' 1 + 1 = 9 their 'facts' don't get to have equal consideration. 1 + 1 = 2 is either a true statement or a false one. It's not a matter of opinion.

It is false to you because you are using different criteria then they are using when discussing evidence. Believers feel their experiences are backed up my facts. Like what you said with deeds and words, they believe their experiences are proof because it is backed up by deeds and words.

The criteria you both use to determine fact or fiction is different. Fiction to you sounds like it's bad. To me, it is not. So, you'd have to enlighten me as to why something they believe that you feel is false is somehow a reason to belittle the validity of their experiences to themselves and their community.

There's no question that the guy who claims that their dog keeps telling them to kill the lady next door truly believes that his dog can talk. But just because it is 100% real to the guy does NOT mean that his dog actually IS talking to him.

His claims to have heard the dog would not represent any sort of evidence for you.

And unless you think his dog really can talk, I suspect you don't think that his experience is any sort of reliable evidence for him that it truly did happen either. Such an experience would represent FAULTY evidence.

I gave the example of the psychologist who knew that his client was experiencing delusions. Since it did not harm him, others, and he can take care of himself, the psychologist helped the client live with it in a healthy way. If there was nothing to be done, and the client did not suffer, the psychologist said there is no reason to tell him he is wrong. This was a psychologist of mine who told me this.

The psychologist had evidence by the experiences described by his client. He recommended he go to a psychiatrist for medication because his real experiences caused him to have physiological and psychological challenges that couldn't be talked away in therapy.

Psychiatrist don't treat people who have nothing wrong with them.

Me personally, I can careless about evidence for religious experiences. I had my share of "god experiences" as many have their share regardless of what they call it. Evidence is not a barrier for me to believe in god. I never believed he existed to begin with.

But I do believe people actually do have god experiences. "God" has saved people's lives. In that respect, I can careless if they believed in unicorns. Since their belief saves their lives, I have no reason to question the belief itself. I wonder about people who abuse their belief.

Also, the man and dog thing, that would be a psychiatric emergency not because he heard an non-existent dog but because the man reacted to his delusions by killing the lady. Delusions do not do anything in and of themselves.

If we talked about the guy, then yeah, I'm all ears. But evidence for god? That's like finding evidence for a pen I know that isn't in my hands. But it doesn't harm me if someone says it is. If it doesn't harm others, why care.

 

[DavidFirth]

OMG!

Your premise

"Faith must be based on fact to be real. Faith purely based on fantasy is just fantasy."​

Is the existence of the one universal, transcendent, supreme god Ahura Mazda a fact? Some, Zoroastrians, say it is. Is the existence of the one universal transcendent, supreme god Jehovah a fact? Some say it is.

Assuming the qualifier "one" denotes "only possible" We then have

The claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Ahura Mazda, is a fact.​

and

The claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Jehovah, is a fact.​

HOWEVER,

Both statements cannot be true, and if one is true the other cannot be.

So. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Ahura Mazda is a fact, any faith based on this fact must real. Which means that the claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Jehovah, cannot be a fact, and any faith based on this non-fact cannot be real. Or in your words, "is just fantasy."

Of course, the same kind of a conclusion holds true if on accepts the proposition that the claim that the only possible universal, transcendent, supreme god is Jehovah, is a fact.

The problem then arises as to which of these claims is valid? As I see it, it comes down to establishing that the claimed fact is indeed a fact.

For the Christian, they need no more evidence than their Bible plus whatever else hits them as true, and for the Zoroastrian, it's whatever convinces them (I honestly haven't looked into this to see what this is). So, the "fact" in "Faith must be based on fact to be real." is simply a matter of what evidence one chooses to accept. Such a fact never reaching the level of a universal scientific fact, but one of personal preference. "I prefer to believe the evidence in the Bible." So, should such a fact even merit the designation "fact"? Should X be regarded as a fact simply because you prefer its evidence? No more so than should X be regarded as a fact simply because the Zoroastrian prefers its evidence.
What it comes down to then is, the validity of your "fact" which is grounded in nothing more than personal preference is no more compelling than the validity of a "fact" grounded in nothing more than someone else's personal preference.

Your "fact" never rises to fact's definition as a universal condition that's 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Your "fact" aint no fact. It's a conclusion based on personal preference. Just as that of the Zoroastrian.


Hey! This has been fun. Thanks for the opportunity to explain it to everyone. . . . and. . . . to set you straight of course.

.

The Bible is filled with verified facts.

 

[DavidFirth]

When scientists claimed that there would be a solar eclipse back on the 21st of Aug. it was an assumption. The moment it actually occurred, it became a fact... no faith or assumptions required.

Well, when they tell me things that can't be verified or observed is when the red flag goes up.

 

[DavidFirth]

Then your conclusion is based solely on assumptions, not verifiable facts.

That was my point. The facts were that I had a gun in the same room as the dead man. Anything drawn from those facts is an assumption.

 

[DavidFirth]

Being both a Christian and an evolutionist isn't necessarily mutually exclusive. List of Christian evolutionists HERE

.

I understand that. Evolution among like kinds (cats, dogs, etc.) I accept as fact. However, ape to man and fish to reptile I do not accept.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is false to you because you are using different criteria then they are using when discussing evidence. Believers feel their experiences are backed up my facts. Like what you said with deeds and words, they believe their experiences are proof because it is backed up by deeds and words.

The criteria you both use to determine fact or fiction is different. Fiction to you sounds like it's bad. To me, it is not. So, you'd have to enlighten me as to why something they believe that you feel is false is somehow a reason to belittle the validity of their experiences to themselves and their community.



I gave the example of the psychologist who knew that his client was experiencing delusions. Since it did not harm him, others, and he can take care of himself, the psychologist helped the client live with it in a healthy way. If there was nothing to be done, and the client did not suffer, the psychologist said there is no reason to tell him he is wrong. This was a psychologist of mine who told me this.

The psychologist had evidence by the experiences described by his client. He recommended he go to a psychiatrist for medication because his real experiences caused him to have physiological and psychological challenges that couldn't be talked away in therapy.

Psychiatrist don't treat people who have nothing wrong with them.

Me personally, I can careless about evidence for religious experiences. I had my share of "god experiences" as many have their share regardless of what they call it. Evidence is not a barrier for me to believe in god. I never believed he existed to begin with.

But I do believe people actually do have god experiences. "God" has saved people's lives. In that respect, I can careless if they believed in unicorns. Since their belief saves their lives, I have no reason to question the belief itself. I wonder about people who abuse their belief.

Also, the man and dog thing, that would be a psychiatric emergency not because he heard an non-existent dog but because the man reacted to his delusions by killing the lady. Delusions do not do anything in and of themselves.

If we talked about the guy, then yeah, I'm all ears. But evidence for god? That's like finding evidence for a pen I know that isn't in my hands. But it doesn't harm me if someone says it is. If it doesn't harm others, why care.

At no point have I indicated that I cared if someone uses faith as a means of determining truth, just that in my opinion faith is a very unreliable means of ascertaining the actual truth. That said, our society is reaching the point where it's going to collapse if everyone keeps up this notion of MY facts and YOUR facts. There has to be a subjective reality that we can all agree on or we're doomed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, when they tell me things that can't be verified or observed is when the red flag goes up.

Yeah, I know. We've had this discussion before. Since you've never directly observed one species evolve into another, you claim their's no evidence to back it up. But of course that would mean that you also think there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Earth orbits the sun, since no one has ever directly observed it happening. I'm pretty sure this is the point where it became obvious that you don't really know how the scientific method works.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yeah, I know. We've had this discussion before. Since you've never directly observed one species evolve into another, you claim their's no evidence to back it up. But of course that would mean that you also think there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Earth orbits the sun, since no one has ever directly observed it happening. I'm pretty sure this is the point where it became obvious that you don't really know how the scientific method works.

Oh, I know how it works. I just don't choose to put my faith in it since it has changed before and surely will change again. Scientists are often just wrong.

Those words in Genesis never change.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

At no point have I indicated that I cared if someone uses faith as a means of determining truth, just that in my opinion faith is a very unreliable means of ascertaining the actual truth. That said, our society is reaching the point where it's going to collapse if everyone keeps up this notion of MY facts and YOUR facts. There has to be a subjective reality that we can all agree on or we're doomed.

Subjective reality that we can all agree on? I know objective reality like mathematics no one needs experience in math to know two and two is four. As for subjective, that's unrealistic.

If a psychologist can determine facts of someone's condition based on listening to his client, believing his client, and trusting that his client is telling the truth-that he is in fact seeing what he is seeing-then the rest of us can do the same thing with our experiences.

Another way to see god is physiological and psychological experiences that when someone has a coincidence and tags it to god, it is not fake but fancy words to say this "mystery" I cannot explain has "importance" and because it has personal importance, it changed my life. Thereby, I am grateful that I have these experiences that I cannot explain because that physiological ump makes life more important than how I see myself.

Also, physiological reactions and EEG monitorings can show when one has a religious experience (when one's senses are heightened to something they cannot explain) because they may feel flustered or have a deja vu. Others may see colors and others have a sense of someone being there.

Whether one calls it god, brahman, I don't know, jemani does not matter. We all have ten fingers and ten toes (for point only) and we all have senses ever since we were born. No one is an alien. So, one person's experience is no better than the other person. One isn't more complex than another.

But they are real. You just have to shift your criteria based on the religion or person's morals with whom you speak with.

That and god is defined in so many ways. I'm an atheist. What in the world do you mean by god?

 

[Skwim]

The Bible is filled with verified facts.

So what? So is the phone book.

.